Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

snip
Unfortunately, I don't "want to believe" the government lied, I know it, both logically and intuitively. This country is in deep, deep trouble, and the only hope is that people first face the truth. There can be no solutions without facing up to the horrible truth.

Yes, we must face up to the horrible truth that such CTs are belived by many, regardless of the weight of evidence.

Alek, how about the witnesses to the pentagon flight?
You tend to believe other 'anecdotal' evidence, so how about these testimonies? dont brush past them....

There are conflicting eyewitness testimonies as to what actually struck the pentagon on 9/11. I don't know what the ratio is.

What I do know is that the FBI confiscated all of the surveillance footage that captured the event, within minutes of it happening, and put a gag order on the owners of the tapes. Why would they do this? If the private surveillance footage corroborates the official story, then why not show me? Corroborating video footage from multiple cameras would certainly convince me.

Some might claim they did this for "national security". I find this unreasonable, since at the moment I find the threat of my own government lying to me to be greater than the threat posed by the supposed "terrorists", and in any event I don't see how releasing that footage would compromise security at the Pentagon.

If the Pentagon officials and the FBI were truly concerned about "national security", they might want to talk to NORAD. Here's an excerpt from the 9/11 timeline:

At 8:43am, NORAD knew that at least two planes had been hijacked. At 8:47am they knew that one of the hijacked planes was used as a weapon to impact the North Tower of the World Trade Center. At 9:24am NORAD knew that flight 77 was hijacked.

Does gross negligence account for the fact that fifty minutes passed between NORAD learning that airplanes were being hijacked and flown into buildings and American Airlines flight 77's impact into the most secure facility in the entire world, in the most secure airspace in the entire world? I don't find this feasible at all.

I don't know what really happend at the Pentagon, but I find the official story to be a lie.

Quote:

Be careful, the governments onto you...remember Hal is watching.

Edit: that fundy site is madness. Irational. And isn't it a good thing if the leader of a powerful country such as USA was not a christian?

I haven't read the entire site. Are you claiming Bohemian Grove doesn't exist, or that Bush doesn't attend it?

There are conflicting eyewitness testimonies as to what actually struck the pentagon on 9/11. I don't know what the ratio is.

Since you haven't found anyone who saw anything but a plane, so far the ratio is infinite.

Quote:

What I do know is that the FBI confiscated all of the surveillance footage that captured the event, within minutes of it happening, and put a gag order on the owners of the tapes. Why would they do this? If the private surveillance footage corroborates the official story, then why not show me? Corroborating video footage from multiple cameras would certainly convince me.

And yet, footage from one Pentagon camera has been shown all over the internet.

Quote:

Some might claim they did this for "national security". I find this unreasonable, since at the moment I find the threat of my own government lying to me to be greater than the threat posed by the supposed "terrorists", and in any event I don't see how releasing that footage would compromise security at the Pentagon.

Alek, run. run far, run fast, they're on to you...

Quote:

If the Pentagon officials and the FBI were truly concerned about "national security", they might want to talk to NORAD. Here's an excerpt from the 9/11 timeline:

At 8:43am, NORAD knew that at least two planes had been hijacked. At 8:47am they knew that one of the hijacked planes was used as a weapon to impact the North Tower of the World Trade Center. At 9:24am NORAD knew that flight 77 was hijacked.

Does gross negligence account for the fact that fifty minutes passed between NORAD learning that airplanes were being hijacked and flown into buildings and American Airlines flight 77's impact into the most secure facility in the entire world, in the most secure airspace in the entire world? I don't find this feasible at all.

Most secured airspace in the entire world? You must be joking. There's a major airport literally a minutes flight from any building in DC.

Quote:

I don't know what really happend at the Pentagon, but I find the official story to be a lie.

Based on what evidence? Evidence is, after all, the determination rational people use to discern the facts and decide what likely happened. So far, you believe in a conclusion w/o any facts.

Quote:

I haven't read the entire site. Are you claiming Bohemian Grove doesn't exist, or that Bush doesn't attend it?

Does gross negligence account for the fact that fifty minutes passed between NORAD learning that airplanes were being hijacked and flown into buildings and American Airlines flight 77's impact into the most secure facility in the entire world, in the most secure airspace in the entire world?

So now you accept the fact that AA77 was what hit the Pentagon?

Yes, the Pentagon confiscated the tapes from the impact, and that makes it harder for you CTers to accept the official story. But they don't care - you are a tiny minority. They might just be concerned that the video compromises their security, by showing how the building reacted to the impact. There are plausible reasons.

At 8:43am, NORAD knew that at least two planes had been hijacked. At 8:47am they knew that one of the hijacked planes was used as a weapon to impact the North Tower of the World Trade Center. At 9:24am NORAD knew that flight 77 was hijacked.

Does gross negligence account for the fact that fifty minutes passed between NORAD learning that airplanes were being hijacked and flown into buildings and American Airlines flight 77's impact into the most secure facility in the entire world, in the most secure airspace in the entire world? I don't find this feasible at all.

You expect them to be psychic.
How were they supposed to know flight 77 was going to be hijacked?
How were they supposed to know which building in Washington the terrorists were aiming for?
What could anyone have done to prevent it even 13 minutes before (unknown) impact? Shoot a jet airliner down over the suburbs and kill even more people than were eventually killed?

I hope your pride is not preventing you from thinking things through after reading people's responses. Stick with it, and muster up a thick skin, and your re-reading of the forum will enlighten you. I hope for your sake you prove our generalisations of CTers wrong.

Not the fire truck in the image. Note how far away that firetruck is from the building. Note how far up the building the destruction goes. The first and second stories are totally destroyed. That's somewhere between 30 and 40 feet off the ground.

A Boeing 757 hit the building. The diameter of the fuselage on this aircraft is only 12.34 feet.

But wait, there's more. Here is another image of the same area:
Notice that three stories of the building are destroyed here? Notice that it's about a hundred feet to the right of where your friend put the box in his photograph?

If you're interested in what exactly took place, there's a simulation available. I think it really says everything:

I was admitted to Purdue and talked to this very professor about his simulations (more from a bioinformatics perspective.) Odd to run across his work again.

My question is (and pardon me if this has been covered and I missed it) -
Even if we accept the idea that the US Government/corporations/globalists planned and somehow gained from the terrorist attacks on 9/11, why was it necessary for them to crash planes into the towers AND rig them with explosives? Wouldn't one or the other have achieved their goal? Wouldn't the visuals of 747s ramming into iconic American buildings been enough to evoke the emotional response needed by the US Government/corporations/globalists to ultimately achieve their end, whatever that may have been?

Wouldn't planting explosives and firing missles be unecessary liabilities? Wouldn't the logistics inolved (getting the proper people and materials into and out of the buildings undetected) be a risk not worth taking considering that hundred-ton, jet powered make-shift missles were already on the way to crash into the towers?

In short, why did this conspiracy require the towers to fall rather than, lets say, just get hit by the airliners and remain burnt husks, constantly reminding Americans of the horror of that day?

delphi, something I don't like about that simulation animation is that it seems to neglect the effect of the reinforced outer wall. It looks to me like it's simulating hitting only the supporting columns in the lower level. For one thing, the plane's wings apparently didn't go through that outer wall - they are fairly lightweight, and just disintegrated upon impact. The fuselage is what went in, plus the engines.

why was it necessary for them to crash planes into the towers AND rig them with explosives?

Let me be the first to say welcome!

I think a conspiracy advocate would explain that the planes were just a cover story, and we weren't supposed to figure out the explosives, or something like that. Bringing the buildings down was their goal, the planes were what we are supposed to think did it, but they "knew" that planes weren't sufficient, so they also planted explosives. If they just did explosives, we would all know that it was an inside job.

Or something like that. In the words of another pro-conspiracy insane person, "We're through the looking glass here, folks!"

Not the fire truck in the image. Note how far away that firetruck is from the building. Note how far up the building the destruction goes. The first and second stories are totally destroyed. That's somewhere between 30 and 40 feet off the ground.

A Boeing 757 hit the building. The diameter of the fuselage on this aircraft is only 12.34 feet.

But wait, there's more. Here is another image of the same area:

Notice that three stories of the building are destroyed here? Notice that it's about a hundred feet to the right of where your friend put the box in his photograph?

If you're interested in what exactly took place, there's a simulation available. I think it really says everything:

But why wasn't the hole more plane-shaped? I mean, look at what happens when a coyote runs into a wall:

I think a conspiracy advocate would explain that the planes were just a cover story, and we weren't supposed to figure out the explosives, or something like that. Bringing the buildings down was their goal, the planes were what we are supposed to think did it, but they "knew" that planes weren't sufficient, so they also planted explosives. If they just did explosives, we would all know that it was an inside job.

Or something like that. In the words of another pro-conspiracy insane person, "We're through the looking glass here, folks!"

Thanks for the welcome. Very glad to be here.

I kind of assumed the answer would be something like that, but Alek's explanation for the US Government/corporations/globalists plotting 9/11 was - "To create the pretext for a panopticon police state domestically and to create the premise for wars of aggression in the middle east, thus satisfying PNAC's conditions for a "new Pearl Harbor" to accelerate the neo-conservative agenda"

I'm asking him, wouldn't the planes hitting the towers have been enough to achieve that? Why did the plot require the complication of demolition? Wouldn't the plotters be familiar with Ockham's Razor?

delphi, something I don't like about that simulation animation is that it seems to neglect the effect of the reinforced outer wall. It looks to me like it's simulating hitting only the supporting columns in the lower level. For one thing, the plane's wings apparently didn't go through that outer wall - they are fairly lightweight, and just disintegrated upon impact. The fuselage is what went in, plus the engines.

The wings do all but disintigrate on impact. The brown/orange floating about is a simulation of the liquid fuel. Look at the total time on the simulation. It's about a quarter of a second. I recommend the video if you're still having trouble seeing it.

I'd post the link to the story, but I don't have enough posts to do so. Check out prisonplanet.com to check it out. The story should be on the main page. I don't think they mention "Loose Change" by name, but the arguments seem to be the same.

I haven't read the entire site. Are you claiming Bohemian Grove doesn't exist, or that Bush doesn't attend it?

Weren't you calling Delphi Ote a liar and an all around bassbowl for commenting on a movie he had only partially watched? It takes all of a minute to realize that the site you mentioned is quite nutter.

You're showing off you're credulity, here. The farther we stray from your 9/11 theory, the goofier you sound.

Originally Posted by Alek

I am one of the most rational and sane people I know, and my friends and family would vouch for that.

I think, just by linking to that site in support of your arguments, you should revisit this quote.

My question is (and pardon me if this has been covered and I missed it) -
Even if we accept the idea that the US Government/corporations/globalists planned and somehow gained from the terrorist attacks on 9/11, why was it necessary for them to crash planes into the towers AND rig them with explosives? Wouldn't one or the other have achieved their goal? Wouldn't the visuals of 747s ramming into iconic American buildings been enough to evoke the emotional response needed by the US Government/corporations/globalists to ultimately achieve their end, whatever that may have been?

I'm speculating, but I think the simple reason is that the towers simply had to come down to generate the desired effect. Which is why I also believe that the 19 hijackers used stolen identities, and were probably patsies running a training op. I suspect they used global hawk technology to pilot the planes into their targets. Flight 93 was an exception.

Quote:

Wouldn't planting explosives and firing missles be unecessary liabilities? Wouldn't the logistics inolved (getting the proper people and materials into and out of the buildings undetected) be a risk not worth taking considering that hundred-ton, jet powered make-shift missles were already on the way to crash into the towers?

In short, why did this conspiracy require the towers to fall rather than, lets say, just get hit by the airliners and remain burnt husks, constantly reminding Americans of the horror of that day?

Audacity. I think 9/11 was a psy-op, and it was a revolutionary one not only in the logistics employed, but in the spectacular impudence of its execution. The symmetrical free-fall implosion of World Trade Center 7 was akin to a magic trick on a massive stage. Unlike most tricks, in which the magician tries to convince you that what you're seeing is impossible, in the case of building 7 the trick is to convince you that what you're seeing is in fact, possible (and even likely), given the explanation. The monolithic voice of media carving out perception, coupled with people's natural inclination to believe the most colossal of lies are crucial factors making this "trick" a success.

I also believe that it is planned for the truth of 9/11 to be revealed, at least in part. The US is already a pariah on the world stage. If the world learned that the US Government was behind 9/11, it would reduce US credibility even more. They can't conquer America without first bringing it to its knees.

Weren't you calling Delphi Ote a liar and an all around bassbowl for commenting on a movie he had only partially watched? It takes all of a minute to realize that the site you mentioned is quite nutter.

You're showing off you're credulity, here. The farther we stray from your 9/11 theory, the goofier you sound.

I think, just by linking to that site in support of your arguments, you should revisit this quote.

He's a liar because he tried to give the impression he watched the film in full, and he started a forum thread about it ostensibly to discuss and debunk what he had just seen.

Not only have I read most of that site, I agree with its content. I didn't post the site in order to disparage it, but to make a mockery of the idea that Bush is representative of Christianity, just because he says he is. What in particular about the site to you find to be nutty? Be specific.

Surely you're aware of the Order of Skull and Bones, and the Bohemian Grove, right?

I already said this before, I'm not concerned with how "goofy" I sound. There is a lot more at stake here than vanity.

I also believe that it is planned for the truth of 9/11 to be revealed, at least in part. The US is already a pariah on the world stage. If the world learned that the US Government was behind 9/11, it would reduce US credibility even more. They can't conquer America without first bringing it to its knees.

Doesn't that make you an unwitting co-conspirator? So basically, whether you argue for this theory, argue against it, or remain apathetic, you're doing the bidding of the conspirators.

Alek, it's simply not possible that every little twist and nuance of your ever more convoluted theory is being orchestrated by the Bilderbergers or Illuminati or Skull & Bones or whoever it is you're insinuating is behind it.

Great links, Luke! Thanks a lot. The more I learn about this, the more I'll be able to nip this BS in the bud next time I encounter it. I'm sure I'm likely to encounter it again in my line of work...

By the way, if you want a detailed analysis of the Pentagon hit, check the Snopes article on it.

Doesn't get any clearer than that.

Thanks for posting that Snopes article. I was looking through the JREF forums for some information regarding a video I saw about the Pentagon attack. I was pretty sure it was a bunch of crap to begin with but I wanted to ask someone here. Now I don't have to!

__________________

And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

And yes I realize that I was responding to a post that was made almost 2 weeks ago. I was beginning to read this thread but I don't know if I will considering the content is something of which no matter how much evidence you prevent against it you will always have idiots believing it.

And delphi_ote, seeing your siggy so much today... I think I'm going to listen to "The Process of Belief" now.

__________________

And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

I suspect they used global hawk technology to pilot the planes into their targets.

In case anyone is adding these things up, how many hundreds of engineers/technicians/maintenance staff would you estimate that it would take, to rig up a commercial jetliner with a fly-by-wire Global Hawk setup?

Keep in mind that it took a few hundred people to rig up the bunker-buster bombs with laser-guided seekers back in the first Gulf War, and that's a fairly minor adaptation. They had to do all kinds of wind tunnel tests to get the control parameters right so that it would guide a big howitzer barrell full of explosives, as opposed to the 2000 pound bombs that the seekers normally are attached to. Your project of fitting a Global Hawk control on a 767 is much larger in scope.

And the passengers didn't notice that they didn't have a pilot? The flight attendants? Or did the planes not have passengers? And if that's the case, where are all those people now who were on the manifests? How big of a staff would it take to "dispose" of dozens and dozens of passengers?

Alek, you seem to be ignoring me, but in case you aren't have you found a single witness who saw a missile hit the Pentagon yet, to offset at least partially the dozens who reported seeing a airplane hit it?

I'm speculating, but I think the simple reason is that the towers simply had to come down to generate the desired effect. Which is why I also believe that the 19 hijackers used stolen identities, and were probably patsies running a training op. I suspect they used global hawk technology to pilot the planes into their targets. Flight 93 was an exception.

The plot thickens. Why would patsies be needed if they was under remote control? What do you think happened to Flight 93?

Same reason you need the planes in the first place, even though you have the WTC towers rigged with explosives: you can blame the terrorists. How'm I doing, Alek?

I think (there's so many conspiracy theories out there I may be getting them confused now) the Loose Change video claims that the hijackers are all alive and well, and the plane for Flight 93 and maybe Flight 77 are still in service. I guess it all depends on which flavor of the 9/11 conspiracy Alek is going to subscribe to, but I suspect he'll keep moving the goal posts as we tear his current theory to shreds.

Same reason you need the planes in the first place, even though you have the WTC towers rigged with explosives: you can blame the terrorists. How'm I doing, Alek?

I don't accept the idea that I have to subscribe to any one alternate theory. I find the official conspiracy theory to be highly suspect, but that doesn't mean I claim to know the truth. I tend to consider all the theories and weigh them by my estimate of the probability that they actually happend, which incidentally includes the minute possibility (in my mind) that the government's OCT is true.

Most people here seem convinced that 9/11 went down just like the government said it did, with few questions. As for one grand theory of precisely what happend on 9/11 and why, I don't own any.

If the world learned that the US Government was behind 9/11, it would reduce US credibility even more. They can't conquer America without first bringing it to its knees.

Who is the "they" in this scenario? It appears that you're saying that the United States government perpetrated 9/11 to reduce their own credibility just so that they, the United States government, could ultimately conquer the United States of America.

My question is (and pardon me if this has been covered and I missed it) -
Even if we accept the idea that the US Government/corporations/globalists planned and somehow gained from the terrorist attacks on 9/11, why was it necessary for them to crash planes into the towers AND rig them with explosives? Wouldn't one or the other have achieved their goal? Wouldn't the visuals of 747s ramming into iconic American buildings been enough to evoke the emotional response needed by the US Government/corporations/globalists to ultimately achieve their end, whatever that may have been?

Wouldn't planting explosives and firing missles be unecessary liabilities? Wouldn't the logistics inolved (getting the proper people and materials into and out of the buildings undetected) be a risk not worth taking considering that hundred-ton, jet powered make-shift missles were already on the way to crash into the towers?

In short, why did this conspiracy require the towers to fall rather than, lets say, just get hit by the airliners and remain burnt husks, constantly reminding Americans of the horror of that day?

The cost of missles and planes and dynamite and the clean up and keeping people quiet...dont state the obvious mate....

Who is the "they" in this scenario? It appears that you're saying that the United States government perpetrated 9/11 to reduce their own credibility just so that they, the United States government, could ultimately conquer the United States of America.

haha senor thats what I was going to take up with him but I must say

Quote:

I don't accept the idea that I have to subscribe to any one alternate theory. I find the official conspiracy theory to be highly suspect, but that doesn't mean I claim to know the truth. I tend to consider all the theories and weigh them by my estimate of the probability that they actually happend, which incidentally includes the minute possibility (in my mind) that the government's OCT is true.

So im reading this as its highly probable the government conspired with thousands of people to launch missles and planes at buildings only to bring them down with tonnes of explosives, meanwhile the alleged hijackers that were on the plane are now computers guiding it remotely with fly by wire technology, all the while the thousands of people that saw it are just patsies, the media is in on it too (many thousands more people) and lets not forget the fact the fbi took videos taken of the pentagon also the witnesses at the pentagon are just liers because we all know bombs went off and.... *breathe*...this was done by the US government because they secretly want to control america, they being not the US government but some higher lords or beings that run all the oil companies as well and lets not forget they are all bloodline related back to shapeshifting lizards and that blair, the queen, all the Bush family and all the previous governments are in on it because bush senior is the only government who still uses his cia priviledges to see dossiers and other covert stuff, and he has massive monetary gains in all this, even sylvia brown and all the psychics are in on it as they 'conveniently' missed it in their predictions and the only one who spoke out was nostradamus but he had to communicate it back then in some vague prophecy because we all know the lizards controlled the world way back then through occult rituals sacrificing babies and other people.....

Or it could just be some people who are suicidal martyr's for their cause that completely hate america really hijacked planes and flew them into some of USA's great landmarks?

Well hey, im confused by the probability of the second being remotely true....

As for one grand theory of precisely what happend on 9/11 and why, I don't own any.

Quote:

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

You guys will go down in history with the rest of the intellectually lazy.

Most people here seem convinced that 9/11 went down just like the government said it did, with few questions.

If it were just the government, this might be an issue. But the statement you make above betrays a grand level of ignorance on your part as well as deliberate avoidance of science, engineering, and proper investigation.

Quote:

As for one grand theory of precisely what happend on 9/11 and why, I don't own any.

Ah, pseudo-intellectual conspiracy agnostism: If you don't subscribe to any one theory, you can't get shot down with those inconvenient facts. If you let yourself jump from theory to theory as you need, then you can be like a fly on dogs[rule8]: nobody wants to swat you, and you can just fly to another turd when they try.

Ah, pseudo-intellectual conspiracy agnostism: If you don't subscribe to any one theory, you can't get shot down with those inconvenient facts. If you let yourself jump from theory to theory as you need, then you can be like a fly on dogs[rule8]: nobody wants to swat you, and you can just fly to another turd when they try.

This isn't just moving the goal posts, it's not even having goal posts in the first place!

I wonder if he'll find any witnesses who saw a missile hit the Pentagon?

Who is the "they" in this scenario? It appears that you're saying that the United States government perpetrated 9/11 to reduce their own credibility just so that they, the United States government, could ultimately conquer the United States of America.

By "they" I'm referring to the globalists who want to institute a one-world government at the UN, and who control the US and US foreign policy, and who are constantly trying to undermine US sovereignty. I don't blame "government" for 9/11, I blame elements within and without the government.

By "they" I'm referring to the globalists who want to institute a one-world government at the UN, and who control the US and US foreign policy, and who are constantly trying to undermine US sovereignty. I don't blame "government" for 9/11, I blame elements within and without the government.